wade, do you think it was before that but however, i think it was before that is what i'm stating >> when you got me banks he called me immediately. will actually you texted me and then you called me. >> i didn't call you immediately. but yes, we did speak >> and you texted me about it as well? >> that is correct >> and then we spoke after mr. wade called your friend and we talked about that as well, correct >> that is correct. >> and at that point, you didn't mention anything to me about being represented by mr. chopra but i didn't mention anything about mr. chopra or that is correct. >> that that was only my question. >> when i say two more texts or

this merchant, we're gonna do more questions. thank you for your file. i'm cutting you off. thank you. >> now a purge out to refresh your memory >> are, these supposed to go together? oh, these are two separate days?

>> i, know we talked about the texts with mr. footnote >> but do you recall me asking you do you think it started before she hired him and you said absolutely. you recall that? >> see that in a text message? yes. okay. >> and do you also recall me asking you how they would react? if they would attack me. >> and you said no, they will deny it. >> your honor. objection as to speculation as to how he thinks they will react and it goes to the motivations of the witness. >> rule and you told me that they will deny it >> that's written in there. yes

>> i just want to one last opportunity you're an officer of the court, correct? >> i am and you're under oath today as are any of your testimony from today or the previous days that you want to correct >> that? i want to correct? yes. >> no i told you everything that i've answered, everything that yes. >> thank you. >> oh, judge. just so won the state can happen for the record, i can admit those rescues >> when they weren't ever tendered just for i didn't know if they wanted to use them. >> but how hold on. >> number. that's i need to be tended at some point that we can make it part of the records all right. any let me turn over to mr. sadow if you're with us on zoom. >> thank you, ana, i do have a few questions. first thing i'd like to know is whether the court reporter has defense exhibits 26 and 27 from the last we have a different court reporter. this time. we had someone else fill in on such short notice, but i can potentially then those to you if you need them >> well, i think i have working

copies, but i want to make sure that the witness has a copy to look at. >> all right. we can try to work through that logistical challenge. this, as you said, 26.27, i believe that's correct. in 26 i think is the same text messages that ms merchant was just asked me about. it was two pages. i stapled together and it is dated january the fifth of this year. >> all right. >> i can print off a copy now, but why don't we start off with the questions that you have? >> okay? because that's where i want that's where i'm going to start. but i'll see what i can do to work through it in order >> okay?

>> all right. mr. said, i wanted we start with your question, then we'll see if we actually need to get a copy of those exhibits in front of a witness. >> all right >> mr. bradley >> yes, i'm here >> all of a sudden i've lost you on the screen there we go. well, you're on the zoom you're on youtube, which are not on the zoom itself. >> but >> then i can see i'm here i. can hear, you know, i know. i think his visuals maybe a little different, so hold tight, mr. sadow, we could try to correct that. >> he was on he was on when ms merchant was asking questions, we need to enable we need to add a spotlight to mr. as for the witness stand in the spotlight to mr. sadow, and we don't need all the other boxes >> there we go >> thank you very much. well, the null time, mr. say that we need to add you as well.

>> all right, now we're ready. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. bradley, you have referred to mr. wade as your client, correct >> correct. >> you understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with mr. way are not privilegedcorrect >> no, i'm i'm aware that the court ruled that one specific dealing with the timeframe of one specific conversation wasn't privileged >> then i'm going to ask, your honor, if sadow limitation the clarifying he made. sure mr. sadow, you asked whether all

communications with mr. wade i think we're covered. that was not the extent of the ruling. the only ones that i deemed were not covered and that i'd asked about in the in camera hearing because those are the ones that were relevant were any communications mr. wade made regarding the existence or nonexistence of a romantic relationship with ms willis? >> fine. thanks, your honor. i understand. so, going back to line of inquiry, when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what i want to ask you to start with very simple did you have communications with mr. wade about the relationship between mr. wade and ms willis so simple, yes or no? yes >> and >> is it your testimony that during the time we were representing him, which i understood started sometime in

2018. is that correct >> that's the time frame that i remember, yes. >> is. it. your testimony under oath that with regard to conversations with mr. wade about his relationship with ms willis, that you only had one such conversation during the time you represented mr. wade? >> one conversation of what i apologize. >> if you only think we're the only thing i'm asking about is that area that the court said is not privileged, which is the relationship between mr. wade and ms willis you've testified that during the time you represented mr. wade from 2018 on that you only had one conversation with him in reference to the relationship between ms willis and mr. wade, is that correct? >> yeah, i think that's fairly

accurate, yes. >> okay. so out of the entire time and talking about could be 2018, 1928 1928, 20, 2021. when did you stop? up representing mr. wade. >> it was a few months after i left the firm >> all right. give me i left maybe june, july of 2022, maybe okay. >> so that would suggest that for assuming it's 2018, 2018, 2019, 2020, 1.5 of 2022, which is in the vicinity of four to four-and-a-half years, you're testifying under oath. you had one conversation about a relationship between mr. wade and ms willis. is that correct >> i don't recall having any other conversation with mr. wade about him and ms willis

>> is it your testimony then that you don't remember any other conversation? are there wasn't any other conversation besides the one an object is to ask you to answer. >> i think he's drilling down. i think that's a fair question. overruled. >> i don't recall i will say it was the one, but i don't recall you testifying that you did have communications with mr. wade about him visiting with ms willis at a condo or apartment, correct >> i don't think i testified that i had a conversation testified that any knowledge that i would have known anything about any condo would have come from that, but i don't recall a conversation about that. i do not recall the conversation about that do you

recall any other thing at this point in time under oath that would >> indicate when the relationship started between mr. wade and willis? >> i do not know when the relationship started between mr. wade and ms willis? i cannot recall that i can't i'm sorry. go ahead >> i'm going to drill down on that now. okay. >> yes, sir >> mr. wade was hired as the special prosecutor on november 1 of 2021. you're aware of that that correct? >> i have my contracts to show when i started, no one showed me the contract of when he started, but so but if if he has a contract for november 1, 2021, then that's correct. >> all right right i'm. gonna i'm gonna suggest to you that the record will reflect that the contract between this willis and mr. wade was november 1 of 2021, correct i

want you to just to accept that. okay? >> is it your testimony that you don't know under oath whether or not there was a relationship between mr. wade and ms willis before the contract? >> i do not recall any dates of when the of when relationship started. so whether you are pinpointing a date of when his contract started or not. i'm telling you i did not recall any specific date that he flat out said anything about a relationship with ms willis >> ok. now, i want to go based on what you've just let's go to, what was defense exhibit 26 >> okay >> in defense exhibit 26, which i showed you last time was two pages of text messages between you and ms merchant, correct?

correct. >> right >> now, the first page starts off by saying, ms merchant like just date, don't hire him do you think it started before she hired him >> you see that >> yes i said yes. >> and your response to that? was absolutely correct. i'm an object. asked and answered in chemotherapy, aren't >> so mr. sadow i do think we went through a lot of these texts we didn't go. through this whole one just a second to say that >> all right >> i'm sorry to say you said we didn't go through this particular one. >> we went through we stopped right there. i want to go i went i answer because she this

over wish that she just stated a few minutes ago you can read it back >> okay you're saying both of these two exhibits were already covered by ms merchant's. >> it was not gone. this particular language was not gone into i'm doing it based on the exhibit itself. well, let's do it this way >> i >> now move into evidence defense exhibit number 26. >> all right. and i don't have to search through my notes. but does anyone recall that one actually been tended in a minute already? >> know it was only presented two, your honor. for you to take back into camera ex parte to speak with mr. bradley and his counsel >> okay. >> ms merchant is indicating that he was admitted admitted it, but organizing the new back in order i think easier for the copies. >> all right. all referring to. all right. so defense exhibit 26.27 are being tendered.

>> actually 26 at this time, but >> okay. defense exhibit second from the state. 26, 26 i'm going to object as it relates to foundation. often an authentication, it was used to it during the last hearing for the purposes of refreshing his recollection and it's my recollection is that it didn't refresh your recollection, but i've renew my objection as to asked and answered in cumulative. >> okay. >> as the foundation on indication, i think mr. bradley has recognized them as texts that he sent and received. so i think i'd overrule on that basis. any other objections to their admissibility from any other defense counsel and seeing none defense exhibit 26 is now admitted. mr. sadow. >> thank you. all right. let's continue now. i'm publishing it. >> after you said the word absolutely. >> on your own >> you said it started when she left the da's office and was

judge in south fulton at asked and answered. >> understand mr. body, i'm going to let mr. sadow have a few minutes on this and we'll go from there. but judge, i well, i'm sorry. i did answer this. i answered it for ms understand. watch it. i stated that i was speculating the judge, someone objected to the speculation and but this was the exact same language. i will rally mr. sadow is asking the question on a slightly different manner, and i'm going to give them a little bit of leeway to do that. so mr. sadow all right. i hesitate to have to start back where i was, but after the word absolutely. you on your own, said it started when she left the da's office. and was judge in south fulton they met at the municipal court cle conference. that's what you said, correct? that is correct. >> it's >> your

>> testimony, at least so far that when you on your own gave those to statements in the text, that you were merely speculating and did not have that knowledge from mr. wade. is that your testimony under oath? >> yes, that's what i testified to yesterday. >> so you on your own, came up with the whole notion that it started when she left the da's office and was judged and south full that's according to you, that speculation on your part? correct? overruled. him. >> that's the question, mr. brown? yes. that's that's speculation on my part, yes >> right. it had nothing to do with what mr. wade had told you, correct? >> i answer your question. i was speculating to the answers. that is correct >> so maybe you can tell the court in your own words why in

the heck would you speculate in this text message and say that it started when she left the da his office and was a judge in south full. why would you speculate and say that in a text i knew they had mad at the municipal court conference. >> how do you know that? >> i'll stop you right there. how did you know that? >> i answered that the last at the last now, i knew that because when you net i'm asking you questions and you are in a situation where you get to give answers. i'm asking you, how did you know that? >> how did i know somebody told you that? right. >> when they met? >> yeah. >> yes, correct it's hold you mr. wade told me when they met. >> so you had more than one conversation about the

relationship between mr. wade and ms willis because he told you where he met her >> that's incorrect. it's incorrect is a correct >> let's go back to let's go back to the exhibit why would you speculate that? that's when they started the relationship? what would cause you to put that down as speculation. >> i don't recall, but why i thought that it started at that time. but i do recall that he only met her and i testified to that that he met her in at that conference, which was in 2019 but you knew that ashleigh merchant represented a defendant in this case when you were text messaging with >> her, correct? >> yes, i did. yes.

>> and you knew that the reason she was asking you questions about mr. wade was because she was trying to show when the relationship began, correct? >> no, that's not what has not? correct. any other text message >> yes, but what weapon messages were before this message before she said that >> i can't answer that question because i don't have them all. i have is what's in front of you? yes. >> and it's that she says, do you think it started before she hired? >> so you knew? >> as the council for a defendant in this case, that ms merchant was asking you specifically about the knowledge that you had regarding the timing of the relationship between wade and ms willis, correct >> i mean, based on this, yes.

>> i see >> and in response to that you answered directly on your own. what do now claim to be speculation, right? >> that's correct. >> so i asked you one more time before i move to the next part of this, why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started? >> i have no answer for >> except the fact that you do in fact know when it started and you don't want to testify to that in court. that's the best explanation. didn't overrule tentative that's real that's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court, correct? >> no, i have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started >> i'm not going to go back

through that again >> if you didn't know and you were asked specifically as this exhibit show you mean you can explain why you wouldn't say i don't know is that a question you're asking me >> she definitely question >> state that again. i apologize. >> if you're being asked as we've just gone through with this text message from this merchant? yes. as the attorney for a co defendant? >> yes. >> and she's asking you about the relationship and she's clearly asking you about the timing. why wouldn't you just have said in response? i don't know when it started. >> i have i don't know why i didn't say i don't know. >> maybe again, it's because you know what the truth is. and that's why you answered exactly the way you did in

defense exhibit 26, correct? >> no, i can't sit here until you that what you just stated was correct >> right. what do you want the court to believe? and you want the rest of us to believe. is that for some unknown reason? upon being asked a direct question about when the relationship started, you decided on your own to simply speculate and put it down in a text message. as opposed to putting down what you actually knew. that's what you want the court to believe, correct >> that was a lot. so can you break that down? i apologize. you're asking me, do i want the court to the who believe that instead of saying nothing, you decided on your own to speculate? >> yes i specularity. yes. i've i've cited that are

speculated. yes, sir. >> i hope that's what you want the court to believe, correct? >> that's correct. >> now, then when you'd go to the next age of that okay >> you see it. start the best that i can see. it starts in south fulton is that what do you have in front of you? second page? >> the second page that i have says that's what i figured >> okay. >> maybe cut off from the ones that i have >> it's i'm >> looking at my opening sentence line says in south fulton, is that on your second page >> no. so if you're going in order of the pages no, neither page starts with south forton >> don't get caught up and

whether it starts at way, does the second page have a line in there that it says in south fulton >> oh, yes. i apologize. so yes, that's fine. yes. >> just want to make sure that we're on the same page. yes >> you say >> after in south fulton, they met at the municipal court cla conference right >> yes you see that? yes. that's correct >> and then ms merchant's says that's what i figured when he was married. is this accurate upon information and belief, willis and wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. you see that's what she said, right? >> no. i mean, so it says met at municipal courts, clv the only other thing here says

that's what i figured when he was married. there's no response for me on that day. and then there's another response i mean, i guess a question that says, is this accurate? >> okay. that's what i was just that's what i just went over with you. >> okay. so i don't have anything in that. is this accurate at all? i can show it just says is this accurate with the question mark? i don't have anything following that >> you don't have after that upon information and belief willis and wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic place that >> as it goes to the next page, i apologize. >> no problems. just want to make sure that no, no. i see that now. yes. >> all right. so that's what i just read is exactly what ms merchant and said to you in the text, right >> yes, that was in the test.

is it accurate upon further information? yes. that's there. >> again >> since you have told us that you were speculating when you gave the answer that we went over with previously? on this one, you don't say i don't know you simply correct her by saying no municipal court >> right? >> yes so she asked was an accurate and i said it wasn't accurate. no, it wasn't accurate. it was municipal court >> right. and when you said it wasn't accurate, it was municipal court. you weren't didn't say no, that's not accurate. they didn't start a romantic relationship at that time, correct? >> no, but i was referring to the municipal court no, it wasn't accurate as it applied to the i was answering the no municipal court, meaning if she when she said is that accurate, it was to the municipal court not magistrate court >> okay. >> but you didn't say that the

rest of what she asked you was accurate, but you didn't say no, that's inaccurate. that's not true. that's not after it used to simply said the only thing that wasn't accurate was municipal court should be there instead of magistrate right? >> so i was answering the question of it was a compound question >> and >> i was answering the question of she wrote in that district court and i said, no municipal court >> right. but it's not compound. it's one statement >> i'm sorry. i know. that's okay. it's i know the feedback and the delays is complicates things, but i think you've adequately major point here don't think we need to belabor it much longer. and let's move on to the next issue. >> thank you, ana >> mr. bradley, >> prior to coming into court today you and you're a lawyer

meet with anyone from the district attorney's office? >> no. >> i may >> endure that. there are no i'm aware of though. i didn't i need to anyone >> so >> i did not hold anyone of my attorneys. >> did you have any conversation? i did not. and >> per-station? i did not so you have not spoken if i understand you correctly prior to coming into court today, you've not spoken with the prosecutors? >> no. >> right? >> i've not spoken to the prosecutors. i have not spoken to defense have you spoken to mr. wade >> know >> so as far as just getting into the courtroom today, there's been no contact or conversation in it with any of the party's. we just went over. >> right? >> there has not been any contact with defense or the state at all i think i have

basically >> just one or two more questions. why would you see the need to speculate when you were texting with mr. marchant? >> i think we did cover that one. mr. sadow i think that exact question was already put to him >> will be there will >> be the next one. >> i'm trying to look. let's go to 27 defense exhibit 27. do you have that now? seducer >> all right. >> would you look at it and tell me whether or not the defense exhibit 27 appears to be accurate because i want to seek to introduce it into evidence. it consists of an email to you from ms merchant

and the texts response from you, correct >> but the text response was not in response? so yes, it does consist of the email and a text response. i'm not saying that the text response applies to the entire email that was sent i've asked, you right now, is are the yes. here's the email and the text. are those accurate? >> in the >> interaction that makes up defense exhibit 27 >> as it applies to the stapling of the email and the stapling of a text message chain? yes. that is defense. defendant's exhibit 27. this is as accurate. >> okay. i would move defense exhibit 27 in i believe it was treated the same as 26 last

time. >> objections, mr. body? >> yes, judge. >> overruled. any other objections from defense counsel seeing defense exhibit 27 is admitted anything? i don't know yeah, i don't know whether you'll find is objection, but will not all asking him obviously all right. mr. bradley, you realize that if you were to testify under oath that you knew from mr. wade that the relationship between him and ms willis existed before the contract in november 1 of 2021, that if you test to find that you knew that for mr. wade, that would show that both ms willis and mr. wade had lied under oath. you know, that don't share i'm going to i think that's going to call for an opinion on the credibility of another testifying witness. so i don't think that would be appropriate question the nassau i have you on. thank you, mr. sadow. mr. stockton just

briefly, judge. >> who will see mr. bradley >> do i understand from your prior testimony that ms merchant's sent you a motion to review prior to her filing an objection >> cumulative answers. >> i'm going to give them just a little bit. >> all right. >> mr. >> stockton, maybe this is going on somewhere else >> did did mrs. merchant send you a motion prior to january 8 of 2024 for you to review that is correct. >> and did you in fact review that motion >> that is correct. >> and did you indicate to ms merchant that the contents of that motion seemed okay. do you >> well, so you're referring to exhibit 27, which as i stated few minutes ago, one is an email, one is a text chain. so in the text chain, when i i

never responded to the email, i never responded. looks good or anything? for the email that was sent to me. however, in the text chain your what you all are trying to merge together is the fact that i was asked about the contract and that in that contract was a sudden $4,000 and me being added act to that. so when i said before that in that text it referred to the may being added back and at that time i said, yes, it looks good. >> and you're aware and you recall that when ms merchant presented you with that motion she asked you not to disclose it to anyone until she filed it? is that correct >> we are covering the last five or six questions we've

covered ground. let's get to that >> ultimately. >> i'm trying trying to get i promise you. okay? >> repeat the question. i'm sorry >> she asked you not to disclose that motion to anybody until she filed it, correct. >> thing. so i think that was in a text messages. >> and you knew in fact it was her intention to file that motion, correct? >> the actual motion that she that was sent >> yes. >> i knew that she was going to file a motion. yes i do not think that that was the final draft or it could have been that she was working on it, but yes, i knew that she was going to file some motion. yes. >> and you knew that she presented that motion to you for your review so that she could make sure it was accurate, correct? >> i'm going to object all this

aston answered all right. noted, i think mr. stockton's get into the next point. so why don't we just ask that one >> is that correct >> did you can alternately combine that with the next question. so we're not having to lay that by bet every single mr. bradley he knew that mrs. merchant was relying on your review to ensure the accuracy of that motion prior to filing it, correct >> speculation as to what he knew that ms merchant's new bet on you and overrule that mr. brown know >> so >> once again, i was excluded from the footnote of that motion and my review of it and i said, hey, you need to add me back to the footnote because i did have a contract and i did

receive 74,000 if i may help you out. let's talk just about that part of the motion that deals with the relationship between the district attorney willis and mr. wade when you reviewed that you knew that she was merchant. >> i know i did not know that she was relying on me too. for any any relying on me for any accuracy other than what was put in there? if i was 74,000 mr. bradley, if there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told ms merchant wouldn't you? >> again, said that i would or wouldn't if i don't i don't know what i would've told me submersion if there was something pat patently

speculative, you would have told ms merchant wouldn't you? >> i don't know what i would have told ms merchant i she asked me, was it accurate we were discussing the 74,000 that was left out. >> again, if i may direct you just to that portion dealing with her the relationship between mrs. willis and mr. wade? you didn't you didn't tell her that there was anything patently false in that because you didn't see anything patently false in that motion as it relates to the relationship repeat your question. >> i'm so sorry. >> you did not inform mrs. merchant that there was anything patently false? in that motion that was that you were presented with as it

concerns the relationship because you did not see anything that was patently false, correct? objection. asked and answered. cumulative. >> our next question, mr. stockton? to stand. >> and you didn't see anything that was speculative in there either digital, an answer came within a sustained. mr. stockton >> i just want to ask you one more question i'm coming out from the other way that mr. sadow did. did anybody from the district attorney's office or any witnesses in this case contact you about ms merchant's motion from january the eighth of 2004 until today >> did >> anyone contact me about her motion? >> yes. from the district attorney's office or any witnesses or anybody else involved with the case besides the defense >> other than the call that the

only personal call that i had was with gay banks. i never spoke to anyone else and to my knowledge, he's not a part of this, so let's all get, judge. >> thank you, mr. stockton. mr. durham, if you still with us? >> no question, joe. >> thank you, sir. mr. macdougal good afternoon, mr. bradley. >> you have certain information about the relationship between mr. wade and ms willis? that is not privileged, correct? >> well, that was my determination, so i think he disagrees with it so i'm going to say his opinions a little bit irrelevant on that point. >> do you understand that the court has ruled but certain information that you have about the relationship between ms willis and mr. wade is not

privileged >> the court's ruling as i understood it, and as my lawyers and i understood it of the privilege not existing was based off of a conversation that was had mi office in the back of my office, which was confidential what mr. wade and ana that's what was asked of me on yesterday. and that's what the ruling to my knowledge, unless i'm being corrected here now and saying that it's more it was that particular piece that the judge said did not have privilege >> and have you testified already today to the sum total of your knowledge of the relationship that is outside the scope of the privilege according to the court's ruling. >> can you ask that again? i'm i'm sorry. i didn't understand

it. >> referring to what you understand to be the information that is not privileged. have you testified to the sum total of that information? >> i think i have, yes. i think i've testified to that, yes >> all right, sir, last my questions, thanks to make due mr. rice mr. brad bradley, at least as of february 15, when you first >> testified, you said you still considered yourself i forgot. said that, yes. a particular day? yes. and you've >> been friends with mr. wade for over ten years, correct? >> that would. further i agree, yes >> and you recall communicating with ms merchant's about this case and about mr. wade and ms willis's relationship, correct? >> object to asked and answered

in cumulative rainfall previous. >> let's we can get onto lay that foundation when we combine it with the next question where you've got a new point to make >> mr. bradley when you spoke, when you communicate with ms merchant's, did you tell her any lies about mr. wade in ms willis's relationship? >> did i lie to ms a. >> question, mr. bradley, you're a lawyer. did you lie to ms merchant when you told her facts about mr. wade and missing willis's relationship? >> not that i recall. i don't recall mentioned earlier that

i'm speculated on some things i've testified to what i didn't know. so i can't recall whether or not no. >> mr. bradley's speculation is kind of weaselly lawyer word. let's speak truth here that under oath, argumentative at this point, your honor >> relevant questions. >> mr. bragg, final question, mr. rice? mr. bradley, when you are communicating different details of the relationship between ms willis and mr. wade to mrs. merchant, did you lie to her about any of those details? objection. asked and answered twice. >> i don't think he's answered yet. i don't recall ever whether any of it was a lie or not? well, it's done. so at the time you were communicating with us merchant, you are still friends with mr. wade, correct?

>> yes. >> and at the time you were communicating with ms murcia, you knew that she was talking to you in her role in capacity as an attorney in this case, correct? >> correct. >> and. you knew that she was going to use that information to somehow benefit and file a motion benefit her client, correct? >> i did not know that i did not go. i'm sorry. >> so as as an attorney yourself you are testifying here under oath the eu had no idea what ms merchant was going to do with all the details that you are giving her about wade and willis has relationship. >> so at the time no, i did not. i knew that ms martin was gathering information. that is correct. >> okay. >> did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began for 2020, we need to

drill into specifics. he's covered in at a high level. i don't think we're going to get much out of this mr. bradley isn't it true the only thing that has really changed well you were speaking to ms merchant >> whether by text or by telephone? you never said to her that i don't remember that. i'm speculating. correct >> i don't recall. >> well, you've looked through a whole lot of text messages. do you remember ever seeing any communication from you that said, i don't remember >> through the messages that i don't have all the messages in front of me, but now i don't recall if i ever said i don't remember. >> do you recall seeing any text messages where you replied to her or gave her details, were you said i am speculating about this detail.

>> no. i've never used the word speculating >> and the only thing that's changed between then and now is that phone call from nathan wade's friend, gray banks, correct >> no. will gabe was my friend and i actually stated that the first day that i was here was that i've known gay for years. and then we were not were but we are fraternity brothers and so i never said that that anything changed behind gay banks. >> so you never told ms marsha you're worried that they were threatening you? >> objection. asked and answered. when he was asked this on february 16 and today

surprise, we've covered this and just to be clear, you didn't attend college with mr. banks, did you >> i did not attend college. >> were mistakes when you refer to them, use your attorney about other you just both happen to a pledge to return a different colleges, different chapters would that's what we consider fraternity brothers? yes, sir. >> and as a normal course of your relationships with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends? >> have i passed on a lie about a friend? is that what you're asking? >> is that something you normally do, mr. bradley, do you tell lies about your friends? >> have told lies about friends. i could have. i don't know. >> do you tell lies about your friends, about a case of national importance >> objection as to overruled >> i could have added i don't know

>> mr. riley, i noticed you're not looking at me. >> i'm looking at you on the screen on the because i was accused of and i did the same thing to mr. sadow when he was almost the next question, mr. rice? >> no further questions. >> i think it's clear. >> thank you, sir. mr. galen good afternoon >> mr. radley >> a few questions. >> a lot of folks have taken out of the questions and i wanted to ask, but allah, i've got a few left here >> we will see. >> you said you, mr. bradley, you said you didn't know what ms merchant was going to be doing with the motion that she sent to you, remember that testimony and minutes ago >> i think i said i didn't know that. i knew that she was gathering information, yes. >> well, let's look at the title of the motion that she sent you. >> do you >> remember on the sec cuz me

do you remember reading the defendant michael roman's motion to dismiss grand jury indictment as fatally effective and motion to disqualify hi the district attorney, her office, and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting this matter. do you remember seeing that in the draft that you read and reviewed? >> yes. >> so when you tell this court that you didn't know what she was up for, which he was going to do. she kind of gave you a hint, didn't she, in the title of the motion? that she sent for you to read? vinci? >> yes or no? >> i'll read the title of what the motion was and wasn't anything in the title that threw you off? pretty straightforward as speaking, title isn't it? >> correct. >> so you knew that what she wanted was information from you so that she could then file a motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment to motion to disqualify the district attorney and her office and the special prosecutor from further

prosecuting the matter. right. and >> object. speculation. >> you knew that didn't you overrule yes or no? >> when did she sent that motion? yes. okay. >> and you knew that the special >> prosecutor that to whom she was referring in that motion was mr. wade, correct? he knew that? >> yes >> because you read the motion, you said you reviewed it, correct >> yes. >> and we're not going to go over all of the number one because we don't have time. and number two, the court wouldn't let me. but there are a few things that i do want to ask you about. hi, in that response and that aspect now, in that motion that you said you reviewed on page six of that motion, on page five, it starts off with how do we know this? and there's a question mark all right? >> yeah, mr. yellen? you, know, i can appreciate what you're doing. i think that's something you can do it argument. he said

as a whole that he got the motion and he's had his responses to his opinion of how he handled it. i don't see that. again, this really, being necessary to go through it line by line of what >> a little indulgence, your honor. i'm not going to go this isn't going to be a 40 minute death march for the motion. i would like to ask about a few bullet points that they capture under this, and then i'll move on, but i wouldn't ask the courts indulgence in that respect. >> again, i think i think he i think we've covered it and i think you'll be able to argue that this was in that motion and that he had a chance to review it and he'd ever objected to anything in there erased. and so that's a problem. and always any a blast very much as next time i'll reshuffle the order. >> we, did earlier with mr. wade and then i hear you. i was kind enough and then the court said we had to go on to draw straws next time we go i'll go with that. all right. anything that's all i have. >> okay. we had mr. kutcher have potentially still on zoom

>> yes, your honor. and i have just a few questions. all right. >> can we add a spotlight to mr. kutcher or if i'll let you know when we were able to proceed judge, before he starts, cannot take a five-minute restaurant hours >> yeah. we've been going to hours, so let's come back at 04:00. i'll also note for the record that we received a notification from mr. cromwell on behalf of ms latham and he said he was waving her presence and i don't know if he later decided to join us by zoom, but i don't think he was electing to login, so after mr. kutcher off, just in terms of timing mr. body, do you have any expectation of how long year, if any, questioning would last? >> i don't imagine my question would be very long. >> okay. >> well, let's get back >> in at 04:00 mr. ralph, you can just set up a jury room

they are taking a short break in fulton county, georgia >> after just scathing intensely emotional, and personal testimony by terrence bradley, this is all part of an effort by the defense in the georgia the election subversion case against donald trump and his co-defendants to boot the main prosecutor the district attorney, in fulton county, fani willis, off of this case, there are accusations that she had an inappropriate relationship with a prosecutor that she hired on that case, nathan wade brianna, some very intense personal relationships, bleeding into the courtroom here ashleigh merchant, as the merchant, i should say specifically referenced multiple text messages that terrence bradley had sent her and september of last year in which he apparently had mentioned her that there was a

relationship that started between willis and wade before she hired him to be the lead prosecutor in this case. during his testimony, bradley essentially said that he didn't remember why he had said that. he said that that was speculation merchan essentially responded saying that he doesn't remember much of anything right now, repeatedly, attorneys for the defense tried to press him and corner him, and he appeared to have a dental time answering pretty rudimentary questions. >> yeah, that's right. and what is clear also over the course of these questions was that this is a pretty small legal community and fulton county. these are folks who know each other well. certainly in those text messages, it seems that mr. bradley shared a lot of information. that in retrospect, he perhaps wishes he had not shared. and it really you could tell on those questions as he was trying to push back and evade giving

answers. eventually as we bring in our chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid and our senior political analyst, gloria borger, eventually, paula, it seemed that the judge was letting a lot one of those objections be overruled. that would have protected terrence bradley from some of these questions and he wanted to get down to some of the facts of what he might have known here. >> that's exactly right. which is why the judge has led this testimony. go forward today, but look, this could have been a consequential for either side, and it clearly wasn't. it doesn't appear that we have any additional evidence or any additional clarity on when exactly this relationship started, though it is pretty clear that mr. bradley, as a witness, does not come off as credible. but if someone's at home and he spent the last two hours watching this, my concern is that it just seems chaotic and confusing. and if you're worried about the integrity of the justice system as former president trump wants you to be to think the whole thing is corrupt. this does potentially add to those concerns. he

didn't answer the questions directly these allegations while it may not result in disqualification of fani willis, i don't think it does anything to really instill trust in the criminal justice system. >> to the point. go ahead. >> yeah, he just seemed to have amnesia. he had what appeared to be pretty detailed conversations with ms merchant, which she remembered in great detail and some of them were salacious. and he doesn't remember anything. he didn't remember any dates and of course, the key to this was trying to find out when fani willis and mr. wade first got together, whether it was before she hired him or not and he didn't recall i'll anything and it really strains credulity here. and one of the attorneys i think made the right point which was, look, you said these things and you did these things and had a lot of these

conversations, but you just don't want to swear to it in court and if you're just listening to this for the last two hours, i think that's what it appears to be >> so paula, what happens next? there are we anticipating that the prosecution in this case is going to want a question terrence bradley. >> it did appear that there were going to be additional questions. mr. bradley asked for or a break just to use the restroom. he's been on the stand for two hours, does appear there'll be additional questions, but this appears to be evidenced that the judge wanted to hear. he wanted this testimony, even though there were concerns about privilege, as he contemplates this larger question of whether fani willis will be disqualified. >> know most >> experts agree that it is unlikely that they have met the threshold to disqualify her, but ultimately, it will be up to the judge and that's a final decision that we don't expect pi for a few more weeks. >> glory, there's the trying to legally invalidate this. get fani willis kicked off the case, but there's also this

attempt to politically invalidate this. and i wonder if you think that some of what but you saw today goes to that end, that certainly former president trump and other defendants, lawyers wanted to achieve. >> well, it seems like a situation i think you were alluding to it at the beginning, brianna which is you have a bunch of it's a small community. you have a bunch of lawyers who gossip with each other and tele two other things that in fact should be confidential and that was exposed today in this courtroom. and i think if you want to have faith in the judicial system and fulton county this doesn't give you much hope and that is why he was such a reluctance it didn't witness to say anything because of course, mr. wade had been his client and he was talking about things he shouldn't have been talking about. so it really the reputation seems to be frayed on all sides to tell you the

truth yeah, it does. >> paula, gloria, thank you so much >> to both of you for your analysis there. the lead with jake tapper starts right now and welcome to the lead. >> you have been watching one of the star witnesses in the case in which they are trying to the trump team is trying to push to disqualify fulton county district attorney fani willis. this witness was ordered back to the stand just a short time ago. this push, of course trump and his, some of his co-defendants trying to impeach her, essentially, terrence bradley is the witness. he was the divorce attorney for fulton county prosecutor, nathan wade and mr. bradley was today repeatedly pressed with new questions about the romantic relationship between his former client, mr. wade aid and district attorney fani willis >> i do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started. i don't